On March 21/8, Vladimir Ilyich begins and on March 22/9 completes the 2nd
*Letter from Afar*, which we present according to the copy preserved in Vladimir
Ilyich's papers, made by means of carbon paper.

---

LENIN.
LETTERS FROM AFAR.
LETTER TWO.
THE NEW GOVERNMENT AND THE PROLETARIAT.
[March 21 (8) — 22 (9).]

The principal document at my disposal to the present date (March 8/21) is an issue of the English most conservative and most bourgeois newspaper "Times" (Taimz) from 10/3, with a summary of reports on the revolution in Russia. Clearly, a source more favorably — to put it mildly — disposed toward the government of Guchkov and Milyukov would not be easy to find.

The correspondent of this newspaper reports from Petersburg from Wednesday, March 1 (14), when there existed as yet only the *first* Provisional Government, that is, the Duma executive committee of 13 men, with Rodzyanko at its head (and with two, in the newspaper's phrase, "socialists" Kerensky and Chkheidze among its members), the following:

"A group of 22 elected members of the State Council — Guchkov, Stakovich, Trubetskoy, Professor Vasiliev, Grimm, Vernadsky and others — sent a telegram yesterday to the Tsar, 'beseeching' him, for the salvation of the 'dynasty' and so forth and so forth, to convene the Duma and appoint a head of government 'enjoying the confidence of the nation.' 'What will be the decision of the Emperor, who today is supposed to arrive, is still unknown at this moment,' writes the correspondent, 'but one thing is absolutely certain. If His Majesty does not immediately satisfy the wishes of the most moderate elements among his loyal subjects, then the influence, which the Provisional Committee of the State Duma now enjoys, will wholly pass into the hands of socialists, who want to establish a republic, but who are unable to establish any orderly government whatsoever and would inevitably plunge the country into internal anarchy, into external catastrophe'..."

Is it not remarkable how statesmanlike this is and how clear! How well the English fellow-thinker (if not guide) of Guchkovs and Milyukovs understands the correlation of class forces and interests! "The most moderate elements among loyal subjects," that is, monarchist landowners and capitalists, wish to seize power into their own hands, thoroughly conscious that otherwise "influence" will pass into the hands of "socialists." But why precisely "socialists" and not someone else? Because the English Guchkovite sees perfectly well that there is no other social force on the political arena and there cannot be. The proletariat made the revolution, it displayed heroism, it shed blood, it drew after itself the broadest masses of toilers and the poorest population, it demands bread, peace and freedom, it demands a republic, it sympathizes with socialism. But a handful of landowners and capitalists, with Guchkovs and Milyukovs at their head, wishes to deceive the will or aspiration of the enormous majority, to strike a deal with the *declining monarchy*, to support, to save it: appoint Lvov and Guchkov, Your Majesty, and we shall stand with monarchy against the people. That is the whole meaning, the whole essence of the policy of the new government!

But how can one justify the deception of the people, their bamboozling, the violation of the will of the gigantic majority of the population?

For this one must slander it — the old, but eternally new method of the bourgeoisie. And the English Guchkovite slanders, rails, spits and sputters: "anarchy within, catastrophe without," no "orderly government"!!

False, respected Guchkovite! The workers desire a republic, and a republic is a far more "orderly" government than a monarchy. What guarantees the people that the second Romanov will not acquire for himself a second Rasputin? Catastrophe is brought about precisely by the continuation of the war, that is, precisely by the new government. A proletarian republic, supported by rural workers and the poorest section of peasants and townspeople, alone can ensure peace, provide bread, order, freedom.

Cries against anarchy merely cloak the selfish interests of capitalists, who wish to profit from the war and from military loans, who wish to restore monarchy *against* the people.

... "Yesterday," the correspondent continues, "the social-democratic party issued a proclamation of the most mutinous content, and this proclamation was distributed throughout the city. 'They' (that is, the social-democratic party) 'are pure doctrinaires, but their power to commit evil is enormous in a time like the present. Mr. Kerensky and Mr. Chkheidze, who understand that without the support of officers and more moderate elements of the people they cannot hope to avoid anarchy, are forced to reckon with their less reasonable comrades and imperceptibly push them toward taking positions which complicate the task of the Provisional Committee'..."

Oh, great English diplomat-Guchkovite! How "unreasonably" you have blurted out the truth!

The "social-democratic party" and the "less reasonable comrades" with whom "Kerensky and Chkheidze are forced to reckon," this is evidently — the Central or Petrograd committee of our party, restored by the January Conference of 1912, those very "Bolsheviks" whom the bourgeoisie always abuse as "doctrinaires" for their fidelity to "doctrine," that is, to principles, to the foundations, to the teaching, to the aims of *socialism*. As mutinous and doctrinaire, it is obvious, the English Guchkovite scolds the proclamation and behavior of our party for the call to struggle for a republic, for peace, for the complete destruction of the Tsarist monarchy, for bread for the people.

Bread for the people and peace — this is mutineering, but ministerial posts for Guchkov and Milyukov, this is "order." Old, familiar speeches!

What then is the tactic of Kerensky and Chkheidze, according to the characterization of the English Guchkovite?

Vacillating: on the one hand, the Guchkovite praises them, they supposedly "understand" (good boys! clever fellows!), that without "support" from officers and more moderate elements one cannot avoid anarchy (while we have thought hitherto and continue to think, according to our doctrine, our teaching of socialism, that precisely capitalists introduce anarchy and wars into human society, that only the transition of all political power to the proletariat and the poorest people is capable of saving us from wars, from anarchy, from hunger!). On the other hand, they are supposedly "forced to reckon" with "their less reasonable comrades," that is, with the Bolsheviks, with the Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party, restored and united by the Central Committee.

What force then "compels" Kerensky and Chkheidze to "reckon" with the Bolshevik party, to which they *never* belonged, which they themselves or their literary representatives ("socialist-revolutionaries," "people's socialists," "Menshevik-defensists" and so forth) have always abused, condemned, declared to be a negligible underground circle, a sect of doctrinaires and so forth?

Where and when has it been seen that in a time of revolution, in a time of mass action, politicians who have not lost their minds "reckon" with "doctrinaires"??

The poor English Guchkovite has gotten confused, failed to tie the loose ends together, was unable either to lie completely or to tell the whole truth, and only gave himself away.

It was the influence of the Social-Democratic Party of the Central Committee on the proletariat, on the masses, that forced Kerensky and Chkheidze to "reckon" with it. Our party turned out to be *with* the masses, with the revolutionary proletariat, *despite* the arrest and exile to Siberia as far back as 1911 of our deputies, *despite* the desperate persecutions and arrests to which the Petrograd Committee was subjected for its illegal work during the war *against* war and against Tsarism.

"Facts are stubborn things," says an English proverb. Permit me to remind you of it, most respected English Guchkovite! The fact of the direction, or at least of the devoted assistance to Petersburg workers during the great days of revolution on the part of our party, *had* to be acknowledged by the English Guchkovite himself. The fact of the vacillation of Kerensky and Chkheidze *between* the bourgeoisie and the proletariat he was likewise forced to acknowledge. The Guvozhdevites, the "defensists," that is, the social-chauvinists, that is, the defenders of the imperialist, predatory war, have now completely followed the bourgeoisie. Kerensky, upon entering the ministry, that is, the second Provisional Government, has likewise completely gone over to them; Chkheidze did not go, he remained *vacillating* between the Provisional Government of the bourgeoisie, the Guchkovs and Milyukovs, and the "provisional government" of the proletariat and the poorest masses of the people, the Soviet of Workers' Deputies and the Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party, united by the Central Committee.

The revolution thus confirmed what we particularly insisted upon when calling workers to a clear understanding of the class distinction between the principal parties and principal currents in the labor movement and among the petty bourgeoisie — what *we* wrote, for example, in the Genevan *Social-Democrat*, No. 47, almost a year and a half ago, October 13, 1915:

"The participation of social-democrats in a provisional revolutionary government we continue to consider permissible together with democratic petty bourgeoisie, but only not with revolutionary-chauvinists. By revolutionary-chauvinists we consider those who want victory over Tsarism for victory over Germany, — for the plunder of other countries, — for the strengthening of the domination of the Great Russians over other peoples of Russia and so forth. The basis of revolutionary chauvinism — the class position of the petty bourgeoisie. It always vacillates between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Now it vacillates between chauvinism (which prevents it from being consistently revolutionary even in the sense of a democratic revolution) and proletarian internationalism. The political representatives of this petty bourgeoisie in Russia at the present moment — the Trudoviki, socialist-revolutionaries, 'Our Dawn' (now 'The Cause'), the Chkheidze Faction, the Organizational Committee, Mr. Plekhanov and so forth. If the revolutionary-chauvinists were to triumph in Russia, we would be *against* the defense of *their* "fatherland" in the present war. Our slogan — against chauvinists, although revolutionary and republicans, *against* them and for an alliance of the international proletariat for socialist revolution."

But let us return to the English Guchkovite.

... "The Provisional Committee of the State Duma," he continues, "evaluating the dangers standing before it, deliberately refrained from carrying out its original plan to arrest the ministers, although this could have been done yesterday with the least difficulty. The door was thereby opened to negotiations, thanks to which we" (we = English financial capital and imperialism) "can obtain all the advantages of the new regime, without passing through the terrible ordeal of the Commune and the anarchy of civil war"...

The Guchkovites were for civil war in their favor, they are *against* civil war in favor of the people, that is, the actual majority of toilers.

... "The relations between the Provisional Duma Committee which represents the whole nation" (this is the committee of the Fourth Duma, landowning and capitalist!) "and the Soviet of Workers' Deputies, which represents purely class interests" (diplomatic language, having heard with one ear learned words and wishing to conceal that the Soviet of Workers' Deputies represents the proletariat and the poor, that is, 2/3 of the population), "but during a crisis similar to the present, has enormous power, caused not a little alarm among reasonable people, foreseeing the possibility of a clash between the one and the other, — a clash whose results might be too terrible."

"Fortunately this danger was averted," according to the correspondent, "at least for the present time" (note this "at least"!), "thanks to the influence of Mr. Kerensky, a young lawyer with great oratorical abilities, who clearly understands" (in contrast to Chkheidze, who also "understood," but in the opinion of the Guchkovite was probably doing so less clearly) "the necessity of acting together with the Committee in the interests of his constituents from the working class" (that is, in order to have the votes of workers, to court them). "A satisfactory agreement was concluded today (Wednesday, 1/14 March), thanks to which all unnecessary friction will be avoided."

What sort of agreement was this, with the whole Soviet of Workers' Deputies, what are its conditions, we do not know. On the *principal* point, the English Guchkovite remained silent altogether this time. And well he might! It is not advantageous for the bourgeoisie that these conditions be clear, precise, known to all, — for then it will be more difficult for them to violate them!

The preceding lines were already written when I read two very important communications. First, in the most conservative and most bourgeois Paris newspaper "Le Temps" ("Time") from 20/III, the text of the proclamation of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies concerning "support" of the new government; second, excerpts from a speech by Skobélev in the State Duma on 1 (14) March, transmitted by a Zurich newspaper (Neue Züricher Zeitung, No. 21/III) on the authority of a Berlin newspaper (Nationale Zeitung).

The proclamation of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies, if its text is not distorted by French imperialists, is a most remarkable document, showing that the Petrograd proletariat, at least at the moment of issuing this proclamation, was under the predominant influence of petty-bourgeois politicians. Let me recall that I assign to this type of politicians, as has been noted already above, people such as Kerensky and Chkheidze.

In the proclamation we find two political ideas and correspondingly two slogans:

First. The proclamation says that the government (the new one) consists of "moderate elements." A strange characterization, quite incomplete, purely liberal, not Marxist in character. I too am prepared to agree that in a certain sense, — I shall show in the following letter precisely in what sense — every government must be "moderate" now, after the completion of the first stage of the revolution. But it is absolutely impermissible to conceal from oneself and from the people that this government wishes the continuation of the imperialist war, that it is an agent of English capital, that it wishes the restoration of the monarchy and the strengthening of the domination of landowners and capitalists.

The proclamation declares that all democrats should "support" the new government and that the Soviet of Workers' Deputies asks and empowers Kerensky to take part in the Provisional Government. Conditions — the carrying out of promised reforms even during the war, a guarantee of "freedom of cultural" (only??) development of nationalities (a purely Cadet liberal paltry program) and the formation of a special committee to oversee the actions of the Provisional Government, a committee consisting of members of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies and of "military" men.

This Committee of Oversight, relating to ideas and slogans of the second order, will be discussed specially below.

The appointment of the Russian Louis Blanc, Kerensky, and the call to support the new government is, one might say, a classical example of *betrayal* of the cause of revolution and the cause of the proletariat, a betrayal precisely of the kind which has destroyed an entire series of revolutions of the 19th century, regardless of how sincere and devoted to socialism were the leaders and supporters of such a policy.

To support a government of war, a government of restoration, the proletariat cannot and should not. In order to struggle against reaction, to resist possible and probable attempts by the Romanovs and their friends to restore the monarchy and gather counter-revolutionary forces, there is needed not at all the support of Guchkov and Co., but *organization*, expansion, strengthening and *arming of a proletarian militia*, the arming of the people under the leadership of workers. Without this principal, fundamental, radical measure there can be no question either of being able to offer serious resistance to the restoration of the monarchy and attempts to take away or curtail promised freedoms, nor of being able to firmly take the path leading to the obtaining of bread, peace, freedom.

If Chkheidze, who together with Kerensky was a member of the first Provisional Government (the Duma Committee of 13 men), did not go into the second Provisional Government truly for reasons of principle of the kind indicated above or similar, then this does him honor. This should be said plainly. Unfortunately, such an interpretation contradicts other facts, and first of all the speech of Skobélev, who always walked hand in hand with Chkheidze.

Skobélev said, if we are to trust the aforementioned source, that the "social" (? evidently, social-democratic) "group and the workers have only a light touching (light contact) with the aims of the Provisional Government," that workers demand peace and that if the war is continued, then in spring there will be a catastrophe anyway, that "the workers concluded with society (liberal society) a temporary agreement (eine vorläufige Waffenfreundschaft), although their political aims, like heaven from earth, are far from the aims of society," that "the liberals must renounce the senseless (unsinnige) aims of the war" and so forth.

This speech is an example of what we called above, in a quotation from *Social-Democrat*, the "vacillation" between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Liberals, remaining liberals, cannot "renounce" the "senseless" aims of the war, which are determined, by the way, not by them alone, but by Anglo-French financial capital, a worldwide mighty force, measured in hundreds of billions. One should not "persuade" the liberals, but rather *explain* to the workers why the liberals have gotten into a dead end, why they are bound hand and foot, why they *conceal* both the Tsar's treaties with England and so forth, and the deals of Russian capital with Anglo-French [capital] and so forth, and so on.

If Skobélev says that the workers concluded with liberal society some sort of agreement, without protesting against it, without explaining its harm to the workers from the Duma tribune, then he thereby *approves* the agreement. And this should not have been done.

Direct or indirect, clearly expressed or tacit approval by Skobélev of the agreement of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies with the Provisional Government is Skobélev's vacillation toward the bourgeoisie. Skobélev's statement that the workers demand peace, that their aims, like heaven from earth, are far from the aims of the liberals, is Skobélev's vacillation toward the proletariat.

Purely proletarian, truly revolutionary and profoundly correct in conception is the second political idea in the proclamation of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies we are examining, namely, the idea of creating a "Committee of Oversight" (I do not know if this is precisely how it is named in Russian; I am translating freely from the French), namely, a proletarian-military oversight of the Provisional Government.

Now *this* is the thing! Now *this* is worthy of workers who shed their blood for freedom, for peace, for bread for the people! Now *this* is a *real step* along the path of *real guarantees* both against Tsarism and against monarchy and against the monarchists Guchkov-Lvov and Co.! Now *this* is a sign that the Russian proletariat, despite everything, has advanced forward compared with the French proletariat in 1848, "empowering" Louis Blanc! Now *this* is proof that the instinct and intelligence of the proletarian masses are not satisfied with declamations, exclamations, promises of reforms and freedoms, the title of "minister by the authority of the workers" and similar trinkets, but seeks support *only* where it exists, — in *armed popular masses*, organized and guided by the proletariat, by conscious workers.

This is a step on the correct path, but *only* the first step.

If this "Committee of Oversight" remains an institution purely parliamentary, purely political in type, that is, a commission which will "put questions" to the Provisional Government and receive answers from it, then it will nevertheless remain a plaything, then it is nothing.

But if this leads to the creation, immediately and at all costs, of a truly all-popular, truly embracing all men and all women *workers' militia* or *workers' uprising*, which would not only replace the beaten and eliminated police, not only make *impossible* its restoration by any monarchical-constitutional, or democratic-republican government, neither in Petersburg nor anywhere else in Russia, — then the advanced workers of Russia truly take the path of new and great victories, the path leading to victory over war, to the realization in practice of that slogan which, as the newspapers say, was inscribed on the banner of cavalry troops that demonstrated in Petersburg in the square before the State Duma:

"Long live the socialist republics of all countries!"

I shall set forth my thoughts on the subject of this workers' militia in the following letter.

I shall try to show there, on the one hand, that precisely the creation of an all-popular, workers'-guided militia is the correct slogan of the day, answering the tactical tasks of the peculiar transitional moment which the Russian revolution (and the world revolution) is experiencing, and on the other hand, that for the success of this workers' militia it must be, first, all-popular, massive to the point of *universality*, truly embrace all able-bodied population of both sexes; second, it must proceed to the combination not only of purely police, but of general state functions with military functions and with control over social production and the distribution of products.

N. Lenin.
Zurich, March 22 (13), 1917.

P.S. I forgot to date the preceding letter March 20 (11).